Fires may change entire look of California

Tom Elias, Columnist
Published 6:00 a.m. PT Dec. 11, 2018

In this Nov. 9 photo, firefighter Jose Corona sprays water as flames from the Camp Fire consume a home in Magalia. A massive new federal report warns that extreme weather disasters like California's wildfires are worsening in the United States. The White House report, quietly issued Friday, also frequently contradicts President Donald Trump.(Photo: AP PHOTO)

It’s obvious the huge, fast-moving and devastating wildfires of the past two autumns changed the face of parts of California. Large swaths of woodlands and brush are now blackened; former luxury homes — and simpler ones, too — became mere rubble and concrete pads.

Many courageous homeowners — some burned out once and others repeat victims, some famous and others just folks — are determined to risk their lives and property again in exchange for the joys of living amid nature’s beauty for at least another 10 or 15 years. It usually takes that long for plant life to regenerate enough to fuel another big conflagration.

And yet with each passing fire season, cries grow louder to restrict the rebuilding. Questions arise about whether all insurance customers should see higher rates so a privileged few can live the life they choose. Outcries against allowing rebuilding in areas called “urban interfaces” grow louder. There’s also the question of utility rates: Should all consumers pay so power lines can be strung in fire-prone areas where large numbers of homes will predictably burn?

These are valid questions, but they beg another one: If rebuilding and expansion of new housing is banned in fire-prone areas containing much of the remaining undeveloped land, where do we put new housing?

There’s already a housing shortage, now being felt by the thousands displaced by fires that destroyed the Butte County city of Paradise and hundreds of homes in Malibu, Thousand Oaks, Oak Park and other areas. Some victims, especially those underinsured, can’t even find temporary shelter.

If California doesn’t allow rebuilding in place or expand development in the burned areas, how will it grow housing by about 3 million units over the next 10 years, as Gov.-elect Gavin Newsom advocated during his election campaign?

Almost inevitably, the answer will include rezoning and dense new building in places considered built out for much of the past century. Just such a plan was pushed in the Legislature last year by Newsom’s fellow San Franciscan, Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener. It didn’t last long, predictably shot down by city officials vowing to fight for local control and against Wiener’s plan for zoning nullification.

Known as SB 827, that plan would have prevented localities from regulating housing construction within a half-mile of frequently used transit stops, whether rail or bus. In wide areas, it would have mandated housing density seldom seen in California outside the downtowns of San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego, with minimum heights of 45 to 85 feet in many places, making eight-story high-rise buildings common in many low-rise parts of the state.

This plan won backing from high-tech moguls including the CEOs of Twitter, Mozilla and others headquartered in the densest parts of San Francisco. It would have changed the character of California more than anything since the advent of the automobile — and it still might happen.

Yes, Wiener’s bill drew strong opposition from residents and governments as geographically diverse as Mill Valley and Santa Monica. But without rebuilding and new building in fire areas, pressure for such a plan will keep rising as the housing crunch worsens, steadily at times but also with sudden increases like what has followed the frightening fall fires.

All of which means the blazes that have already degraded hundreds of thousands of acres might soon change the character of California itself, including areas never touched by any major fire.